Topic awaiting preservation: Women Dies From Injury in Ring (Page 1 of 1)

Women Dies From Injury in Ring

I remember earlier controversies about Boxing and brutality. I suppose this may heat it back up.

Kinda strange that women would want to step into a ring and kill one another.

I don't think anyone wants to step into a ring to kill another, people die from all kinds of sports, it just so happens that in boxing the injury comes directly from your opponent.

It is well established that if you are going to be participating in the sport of boxing, that you are running the very real risk of being killed. And that the whole point of boxing is to out-box your opponent - which normally consists of punching him/her. A lot of these punches are targeted at the head, which results in injury.

So it is not a case of "just so happens", but one of a deliberate scheme to injure the opponent. These types of injury can lead to death.

In light of recent events, does this mean that the other boxer may be charged with manslaughter ? or is there some disclaimer that protects both fighters ?

No Sig ?

It is well established that if you are going to be participating in the sport of boxing, that you are running the very real risk of being killed.

Just like any kind auto/boat/motorcycle/horse racing, hang gliding, wrestling, football, etc, etc, etc.

:::11oh1:::

Running a very real risk of getting killed....in football?? WTF? The others I can just about agree with for the main part, but there is a reason that boxing is no longer practised in virtually any schools, while football is welcomed with open arms. Boxing is about inflicting injury. Football (I would hope) is not!!

Wrayal

Meh, one day I'll have a website worth seeing...honest

Um I'm pretty sure krets is referring to american football. Slightly more risk there



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

wrayal: I believe the reference to FOOTBALL is an american reference as opposed to british SOCCER. The two sports have a great difference is play and physical action.

No Sig ?

Heh...oops. Still they wear so much armour there's no risk...go take a look at rugby players - now that's much more dangerous

*ducks and covers *

Anyway...I think there is an important distinction. The _point_ of boxing is to hurt one another. This is radically different from any other sport (except "sports" such as awrestling obviously). And that is a very important distinction. You go into hangliding looking for fun. You go into boxing looking to inflict pain - a fundamental difference

Wrayal

Meh, one day I'll have a website worth seeing...honest

(Edited by wrayal on 04-06-2005 22:39)

wrayal: The reason American football players wear pads is because if guys that size hit each other at the speeds they play the game, there would be no uncertainty about seeing deaths, you'd see them every game.

:::11oh1:::

krets: of course I know that, or it wouldn't so clearly have been a tongue in cheek comment. However, once again, look at rugby. I know American football is fast, but you get some equivalent speeds and pieces of viciousness. But...whatever, let's not get into an argument.

Wrayal

Meh, one day I'll have a website worth seeing...honest

There are clear distinctions between most sports, and boxing.

The goal in Boxing is to either incapacitate the opponent with punches to the point that they cannot get back to their feet for nine seconds, or a win by points decided by three ringside judges over a certain number of rounds. These points are largely decided by actual punches and punches landed.

No other sport includes the first part (Boxing is a martial arts sport art). It is the first part that is the deciding factor, IMHO.

I am aware that most Boxers (having been one myself for two years) know of and accept the dangers.

WebShamen is right, the goal is to render your opponent defenceless. Point of fact, Horse riding, motorcycling and rugby all rank higher on the dangerous sports list.

For several years I was the local 'let's get ready to rumble' guy and have to admit that intially I was pretty uncomfortable introducing and then watch, from ring-side, as 2 women hammered hell out of each other. The Ref's were pretty ackward with it too.

It wasn't too long tho' before you realized that 'some' of the women could, in short order, likely dispatch a lot of the men on the card.

Overall I'm still not crazy about women in the ring but if it's a 'competetive' match.. I'll probably watch.

Women in the ring is not something new btw. There were professional women's bouts in the 1950's and well before that...

quote:

---

1876
Susan Cahn in "Coming on strong, gender and equality in 20th century sport" notes a match between Nell Saunders and Rose Harland in 1876 at Hills Theater in NYC. they supposedly fought for a silver butter dish. This was considered the first women's match in the United States.

---

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenboxing.com%2Fhistoric.htm

As for boxing being a 'Sport' I've never considered it a 'sport' as such. Mills Lane, one of the best Ref's ever... said it best imo. (paraphrase) '... Boxing isn't a sport... it's a discipline that should be on the business page but shows up on the sports page.'

You can't very well tell women they can be Prime Minister or President but not a boxer.

The last few years I've been itrigued with 'ultimate-fighting' but that's another story. =)

[joke level=bad]
Bah! A good game of snooker is more dangerous! Sink that triple-ball, quadruple cushion trickshot and you ru nthe serious risk of your opponent attempting to wrap his cue around your head
[/joke]


Justice 4 Pat Richard